M
mtr01
Guest
My whole take on the issue, for what it’s worth, is that the Church decided to treat us like adults (giving us more choices and freedom), but the vast majority of us responded by acting like children.
- Status
J
jimmy
Guest
That thought has occured to me too, but if you give them more choices, they will choose the one that is easier to do.
People are better off when there is someone teaching them how to work. Think about it like this, if you are playing a sport, are you more likely to work hard with a strict coach, or with a coach that allows you to workout how you want?
B
BibleReader
Guest
Most Bible verses speak at both the literal, or plaintext, and typological, or sensus plenior, level.
At the literal level, veiling probably addressed the “beginning threshhold” of un-clothing a woman in the Early Church. In other words, if the Bible had been written in the Victorian era, when showing the ankles was considered “risque,” it would have said that the woman shall keep her ankles covered.
In our day and age, the woman is very un-covered. Bras and cleavage make the chest look full and youthful. Shirts are short enough and jeans hip-huggerish enough to show the navel enough to make men think of what the woman would be like with the pants the rest of the way down. The pants are tight enough to tell men a lot about the shape of the woman’s tail. So, if the Bible were written in our day and age, it would have said that the woman shall wear a parachute into church!
The point is that if the woman wears a veil, but otherwise conforms to today’s fashions, she may as well skip the veil. Men will not be looking up, but down. And, so, forget the veil. Let’s worry about the rest of the get-up.
Men also have some decency issues as far as dressing for church is concerned. We are talking, here, about women’s dress in church.
Though that is my take on the plaintext meaing of the veil requirement, the typological, or sensus plenior, meaning is probably more important.
In the Bible, the Woman Type represents all of us – “mankind in need of salvation.” (The Man Type represents “God,” “representative of God,” or “empowered by God,” which is why angels are invariably male in the Bible.) The Clothing Type represents “religious beliefs.” So, a Biblical requirement that women wear a veil is a typological statement that those “in need of salvation” – all of us – need “religious beliefs.”
I.e., getting into a big sweat about whether veil-less women is another sign that the Catholic Church is un-Godly is a missing of the point of the Bible verse at both the plaintext level and sensus plenior level.
At the literal level, veiling probably addressed the “beginning threshhold” of un-clothing a woman in the Early Church. In other words, if the Bible had been written in the Victorian era, when showing the ankles was considered “risque,” it would have said that the woman shall keep her ankles covered.
In our day and age, the woman is very un-covered. Bras and cleavage make the chest look full and youthful. Shirts are short enough and jeans hip-huggerish enough to show the navel enough to make men think of what the woman would be like with the pants the rest of the way down. The pants are tight enough to tell men a lot about the shape of the woman’s tail. So, if the Bible were written in our day and age, it would have said that the woman shall wear a parachute into church!
The point is that if the woman wears a veil, but otherwise conforms to today’s fashions, she may as well skip the veil. Men will not be looking up, but down. And, so, forget the veil. Let’s worry about the rest of the get-up.
Men also have some decency issues as far as dressing for church is concerned. We are talking, here, about women’s dress in church.
Though that is my take on the plaintext meaing of the veil requirement, the typological, or sensus plenior, meaning is probably more important.
In the Bible, the Woman Type represents all of us – “mankind in need of salvation.” (The Man Type represents “God,” “representative of God,” or “empowered by God,” which is why angels are invariably male in the Bible.) The Clothing Type represents “religious beliefs.” So, a Biblical requirement that women wear a veil is a typological statement that those “in need of salvation” – all of us – need “religious beliefs.”
I.e., getting into a big sweat about whether veil-less women is another sign that the Catholic Church is un-Godly is a missing of the point of the Bible verse at both the plaintext level and sensus plenior level.
T
trth_skr
Guest
I appreciate your comments about modesty, but to St. Paul this was an authority issue (submission of man to woman). It was not a modesty and style of dress issue at all.
MJW
B
BibleReader
Guest
And do you think that it is a coincidence that the veiled women are “she’s,” and that those who don’t have to wear the veil are “he’s”?
And can you think of anything less bound to the authority taught by the gospel than a woman “un-dressed to kill” in church? Imagine a really good looking girl “un-dressed to kill,” with a veil. Don’t you see a contradiction?
You are wrong. It’s about sexual looking and sexual being-looked-at.
M
Mamamull
Guest
I have felt called to wear a chapel veil. My husband bought one for me for Christmas. I also made a black one for Lent. I don’t get any negative comments, but I have gotten positive ones.
I go to church in the 'burbs and our Bishop is less than conservative, but in participating in Eucharistic Adoration and just overcoming my Barney catechism, it just seems only right to humble myself before my Lord present in the most Blessed Sacrament.
I go to church in the 'burbs and our Bishop is less than conservative, but in participating in Eucharistic Adoration and just overcoming my Barney catechism, it just seems only right to humble myself before my Lord present in the most Blessed Sacrament.
D
DianJo
Guest
DianJo:
If you’ll re-read - I did say that I “could be wrong” on that notion of custom or societal conformity of the time.
I agree with your post and the related bible passages and I do particularly love that part of Corinthians! I know it drives feminists crazy but they do not understand the true meaning and relationship of the verses.
The one thing I didn’t like about the original post was the fact that if women didn’t cover their head, we were dishonoring God. I do not think the Church, in her infinite wisdom of 2000 years and a complete understanding of all scripture, would let devout Catholic women intentionally dishonor God. I would certainly honor the Church is she felt it necessary to order women to cover our heads.
I was only about 8 years old at the start of VII and can remember when it was told to me that the Church no longer required us to cover our heads - so we didn’t do it anymore and haven’t since then. It’s not what I was used to doing for most of my life. It’s just been a non-issue. It’s also a matter of discipline, not doctrine so the Church can change it if she feels the necessity of doing so. Lord knows that I do not dishonor God.
J
jimmy
Guest
jimmy:
I am sorry if you thought I was attacking you, that was not my intent. I could be wrong too. I accept the Churches authority to change disciplines, but I do not like that they feel a need to change every discipline.
A
Arwen037
Guest
7 The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. 9 For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man.
jimmy posted that part too. So, are we back to women are less than men? Men are created in God’s image, but women are not created in God’s image? I would like a priest or deacon’s opinion (I plan on asking my RCIA instuctor about it) on the statement that women are not created in God’s image, but in man’s image. And if women are created for men, aren’t we back to women should be completely obedient to men again? Who here thinks letting men decide everything about a women’s life is a good idea? I post this not to be argumentative, but to make a point.
jimmy posted that part too. So, are we back to women are less than men? Men are created in God’s image, but women are not created in God’s image? I would like a priest or deacon’s opinion (I plan on asking my RCIA instuctor about it) on the statement that women are not created in God’s image, but in man’s image. And if women are created for men, aren’t we back to women should be completely obedient to men again? Who here thinks letting men decide everything about a women’s life is a good idea? I post this not to be argumentative, but to make a point.
J
jimmy
Guest
Arwen037 said:
Don’t put words into my mouth. You are being very dishonorable.
No, women are not less than men. It would be discracefull for a man to cover his head. Just like women have things to follow, men have things to follow.
T
trth_skr
Guest
Arwen037 said:
Man = A
Women = B
God = C
A → C
B → A
therefor, B->C
Or: If man is created in the image of God.
And
Woman is created in the image of man (who is created in the image of God),
Then
Woman is created in the image of God.
Genesis 1:27
“And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.”
(Similar to mathematics:
If
A = C and
B = A,
then
B = C)
MJW
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
thewyricks,
I appreciate much of what you say on this subject, however I am having a little trouble with the scriptural support of the old testament.
She isn’t being punished yet, just tried.
Isaias:Assuredly this resonates with Pauls talking about the glory of a woman being her hair. But what of the veil?
Song of Songs: I don’t get this one, her cloak is taken but there is no indication she was being disgraced. The passage seems to carry the sense that the guards were grabbing for her because of an act of trespass and she barely got away – by leaving her cloak. (Didn’t that also happen to a man in the garden with Jesus?) The hair or veil doesn’t seem to figure prominently.
I can see some connection in these passages, but perhaps some extra biblical text is being remembered? e.g. a commentary of some kind?
Looking at other people’s posts on the CDF (1976) comment, I would note something: The declaration is not infallible, and the declaration itself admits this by declairing its opinion only ‘probable’.
The Catholic Church does not appear to know, with certanty, the reason for the head covering, but is using its authority to allow the uncovering of women in church. If the church is wrong here, the discipline can be changed again later.
I appreciate much of what you say on this subject, however I am having a little trouble with the scriptural support of the old testament.
In numbers, the hair is let loose. So that one seems OK with respect to some kind of uncovering, but isn’t the intention of the passage to explore a potentially innocent women’s standing by God?
She isn’t being punished yet, just tried.
Isaias:Assuredly this resonates with Pauls talking about the glory of a woman being her hair. But what of the veil?
Song of Songs: I don’t get this one, her cloak is taken but there is no indication she was being disgraced. The passage seems to carry the sense that the guards were grabbing for her because of an act of trespass and she barely got away – by leaving her cloak. (Didn’t that also happen to a man in the garden with Jesus?) The hair or veil doesn’t seem to figure prominently.
I can see some connection in these passages, but perhaps some extra biblical text is being remembered? e.g. a commentary of some kind?
Looking at other people’s posts on the CDF (1976) comment, I would note something: The declaration is not infallible, and the declaration itself admits this by declairing its opinion only ‘probable’.
The Catholic Church does not appear to know, with certanty, the reason for the head covering, but is using its authority to allow the uncovering of women in church. If the church is wrong here, the discipline can be changed again later.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
With the man/woman equality thing,
I really get tired of this kind of bickering.
Jesus was God, he is the head, he has all authority (even despotic if he wanted to.)
But Jesus uses his headship to SERVE.
If a man is king, in the sense of the Hebrew/Jesus kingship, he serves.
The notion that being King means that the willy nilly whim of a man is to be obeyed is absurd. That’s the English idea of king, not the Hebrew.
“Men love your wives … lay your life down for them.”
I had a mother over me when growing up, now I have a wife next to me. I would much rather please my wife than control her!
(Even pleasing her is sometimes impossible.)
But my wife and I are not the same (identical), although we are equal. Each of us does have a role, and when we reach an impasse in an argument there does have to be a way (in love) of resolving it.
Every time this is forgotten, it leads to a fight just as predicted in Genesis – lust and domination.
I really get tired of this kind of bickering.
Jesus was God, he is the head, he has all authority (even despotic if he wanted to.)
But Jesus uses his headship to SERVE.
If a man is king, in the sense of the Hebrew/Jesus kingship, he serves.
The notion that being King means that the willy nilly whim of a man is to be obeyed is absurd. That’s the English idea of king, not the Hebrew.
“Men love your wives … lay your life down for them.”
I had a mother over me when growing up, now I have a wife next to me. I would much rather please my wife than control her!
(Even pleasing her is sometimes impossible.)
But my wife and I are not the same (identical), although we are equal. Each of us does have a role, and when we reach an impasse in an argument there does have to be a way (in love) of resolving it.
Every time this is forgotten, it leads to a fight just as predicted in Genesis – lust and domination.
- Status